Gitea: Get pull request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally and the description need not restate it. Beyond that, the description discloses nothing extra — not what kind of detail is returned, whether the call fails on a closed/merged or nonexistent PR, or any auth/site scoping expectations. For a read tool with a single sentence that only restates the name, this is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence that states purpose immediately, with no padding beyond the noise tag "[UNIFIED]" and the mildly redundant "of a specific." It is appropriately sized for the operation, though the bracket prefix is wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple read with no nested objects and a flat four-field schema, so the burden is modest and the description is nominally sufficient to identify the operation. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, an agent still lacks guidance on what the response contains (fields, diff inclusion vs. metadata) and how the site/owner/repo identifiers compose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all four parameters (site, owner, repo, pr_number) rely entirely on the description for meaning. The description only glosses pr_number via "by number" and says nothing about what site, owner, or repo denote (e.g., Gitea instance host vs. repository coordinates), leaving the caller to guess the identifier conventions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Get details of a specific pull request") plus the lookup key ("by number"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like gitea_list_pull_requests, gitea_create_pull_request, and gitea_merge_pull_request. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative (gitea_get_pr_diff) explicitly, and the "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds no semantic value, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over gitea_get_pr_diff or gitea_list_pull_requests, and no note about prerequisites such as needing an existing PR number. The phrase "by number" is the only implied condition for use, which an agent could infer from the schema anyway.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.